Afrikaner genocide, persecution claims lack legal foundation

Prof Dirk Kotzé

Immigration, asylum and refugee status have become controversial global issues and affect the politics of many countries. President Trump’s decision to grant refugee status to white Afrikaners is unique and makes a general political statement about South Africa. 

In only one other country this issue has emerged, namely. At three different points in time South African families applied for refugee status in Canada. The first one was granted in 2009 but revoked in 2014, the second one was in 2010, when their asylum application was denied but refugee status later granted, and in 2016 when their refugee status was also denied.

The grounds on which refugee status is claimed are in all cases the same: the physical security situation is regarded as a threat to their lives, and it is because of their racial identity. In the case of President Trump, it is worth looking at his executive order, “Addressing Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa” on 7 February 2025 as an indication of what is the American motivation for this decision. Mainly three points emerged.

The first is South Africa’s new Expropriation Act. The order described the Act as a “shocking disregard of its citizens’ rights” and it enables “the government of South Africa to seize ethnic minority Afrikaners’ agricultural property without compensation”. Furthermore, it accuses the South African government of “government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation”.

The second motivation is “countless government policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education and business”. The third point is “hateful rhetoric and government actions fueling disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners”. 

In summary, the American motivation is based on land expropriation in the agricultural sector, specifically focused not on white but “ethnic minority” Afrikaner farmers. Secondly, it is based on racial (white or Afrikaner) discrimination, presumably employment equity and black economic empowerment. These are all political, policy and constitutional human rights issues. No reference to genocide in South Africa is included in the executive order.

Are these the grounds for claiming refugee status?

The United Nations convention on the status of refugees adopted in 1951 and its protocol of 1967 defines a refugee based on “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” or when a person is “outside the country of his nationality, and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”. The essence of this definition is the fear of persecution. 

In the current situation, the fear of persecution is not articulated in the executive order or in statements made by the Solidarity movement or persons who applied for refugee status. Their focus has been on safety concerns on farms, the risk posed by expropriation of farms, and their criticism of the affirmative action policies. 

The objective, legal criteria for refugee status are therefore not met in this case. Ordinary immigration, especially if they have sought-after skills like farming, would have been a much easier and less controversial option. Except if the controversy is part of the strategy.

The American domestic response to the arrival of the group of 49 Afrikaners with refugee status has been more negative than expected. The Trump policy in general is to close down most of the options for refugee or asylum status and to formalise immigration to the US much more. At the moment, persons in war-torn areas or where persecution is a daily reality, such as in Afghanistan, Sudan, Syria, Myanmar, Venezuela or even journalists in Türkiye, are mostly denied American refugee status. The question is, therefore asked why such an exception for the Afrikaners? 

No clear answer is readily available, and therefore, only conjecture is possible. Concepts like “ethnic minority Afrikaners” and “racially disfavoured landowners” are used. Culturally and racially, they are closer to Trump than those from Asia, the Middle East or South America. Trump also has a principled problem with equity and inclusivity policies, both in the US and elsewhere. He even opposed South Africa’s theme of the G20 summit (Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability).  

What explains the current predicament? The most likely answer is that the conservative groups in South Africa, like the Solidarity Movement, have invested over an extended period a lot in lobbying conservative parties and movements in North America and Europe to accept their political programme in South Africa.

Solidarity has a full-time section responsible for international liaison. They align with their counterparts globally during times of national elections and other major political events. It amounts to an international network of like-minded groups. The conservative turn in many countries, such as the USA and now also Germany, strengthens the conservative resolve in South Africa. Solidarity’s latest visit earlier this year to Washington, DC, found fertile ground for their sentiments. 

At the same time, South Africa’s public diplomacy and bilateral communication with the USA over an extended period did not present a clear message of the latest domestic developments and policies. There is, therefore, no clear counter-narrative available in Washington, DC. Diplomacy with the US requires extensive lobbying over a long period to cultivate networks of support at different levels. Longer-term scenario-planning is necessary to be better positioned to be able to anticipate new developments in future. 

The message for the South African government is that much more long-term investment in professional diplomatic lobbying, networking and national branding is required. Countries like Türkiye, Rwanda (despite the eastern DRC situation), Ethiopia (despite the Tigray conflict) or Qatar are good examples of how it can be done.

*Prof Dirk Kotzé, Department of Political Sciences, Unisa.

**The views in this article do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media, IOL and The African.